Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Principle: Copyright law protects only work. 'Work' means cinematographic film but does not include performance by an actor in a cinematographic film.
Facts: Alia Bhatt acted in a movie.
पर्याय
The acting of Alia Bhatt can be protected as film producer's work.
The acting of Alia Bhatt can be protected under copyright law as professional work.
The acting of Alia Bhatt cannot be protected under copyright law.
The acting of Alia Bhatt can be protected under copyright law only as an artistic work.
Advertisements
उत्तर
The acting of Alia Bhatt can be protected under copyright law as professional work.
Explanation:
The reasonable conclusion is drawn that the acting of Alia Bhatt is protected under copyright law. The copyright shall subsist until sixty years from the beginning of the calendar year next following the year in which the film is published.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
Principle: In cases where there is an infringement of legal right even without any actual loss or damage, the person whose right is infringed has a cause of action.
Facts: 'P' was wrongfully prevented by the Returning Officer from ex ercising his vote in an assembly election. However, the candidate for whom he wanted to caste his vote won the election. Still, he ('P') brou ght an action claiming damages. Which of the following derivations is correct?
Principle: Import means bringing some consignment into India from a foreign country.
Facts: A consignment from Sri Lanka entered the territorial waters of India. However, this consignment never crossed the Indian custom barrier nor did it enter into the stream of commerce in India.
When goods are displayed in a shop with a price tag, it is
What Is an ECO-MARK?
In order to establish the tort of assault, what type of apprehension must the plaintiff prove that he or she had as a result of the defendant’s conduct?
Which of the following court cases involves a tort?
PRINCIPLE Res ipsa loquitur reverses the burden of proof, creating a rebuttable presumption of the guilt of the defendant in situations where the default of the defendant seems apparent.
FACTS X, a truck driver, crashed into Y for no fault of his while trying to save Z, a student who was loitering in school uniform. Based on the facts above, Y inquires the presumption of negligence shall be in favour of
Mr. Samay was severely hurt while working in his factory and fell unconscious. He was rushed to a hospital by his fellow workers. In the hospital (at the emergency/casualty ward), the doctor opined that he should be operated immediately. While conducting preliminary examinations, he was found to be HIV positive. The doctors are in a dilemma regarding what should they do first.
Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer:
Legal Principles:
1. The Tort of Negligence is a legal wrong that is suffered by someone at the hands of another who fails to take proper care to avoid what a reasonable person would regard as a foreseeable risk.
2. The test of liability requires that the harm must be a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant’s conduct, a relationship of proximity must exist and it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability.
3. Volenti non-fit injuria is a defense to action in negligence.
Facts:
A team of scientists imported a virus for the purpose of research. They carried out research on their premises into foot and mouth disease in cattle, and they were apparently responsible for the escape of some virus. As a result, there was an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in the area, and the Minister of Agriculture ordered two markets to be closed. This caused some of the traders, who were two firms of auctioneers, to suffer a loss of profits on a total of six market days, from which they sought to recover. Decide whether the scientists owed a duty of care towards the traders?
Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer:
Legal Principles:
1. Private nuisance is a continuous, unlawful and indirect interference with the use or enjoyment of land, or of some right over or in connection with it.
2. The person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes must keep it in at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.
3. Generally, nuisances cannot be justified on the ground of necessity. pecuniary interest, convenience, or economic advantage to a defendant.
Facts:
Dr. Hemant had for 18 years operated a clinic and hospital for the treatment of ENT. Dr. Karan operated a renal clinic in which patients receive haemo-dialysis on the floor above Dr. Hemant’s clinic. Karan was found liable for obnoxious fumes emitting from the clinic which escaped downwards into Dr. Hemant’s clinic. Hemant, his staff and patients were found to have suffered substantial damage ranging from skin diseases, red and swollen eyes, headaches, lethargy and breathing difficulties. Decide whether Karan is liable?
